Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016549)

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016549

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A mutual exchange.
   2. Repairs to the property and a pest infestation.
   3. The resident’s request for a management transfer to another property.
   4. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a two bedroom flat with the landlord. She occupies the property with her adult daughter. She moved to the property following a mutual exchange in February 2021. The resident has a long-term health condition.
3. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy sets out the procedure for a mutual exchange and the circumstances in which an exchange can be refused. Permission to mutual exchange is not unreasonably refused unless there are grounds. The policy notes that in providing a reference to other landlords, it will disclose all known criminal activity related to the property or neighbourhood. The policy also states that incoming tenants have the same right to repair that are the landlord’s responsibility as other tenants of the landlord. Responsibility for repairs that were the responsibility of the outgoing/former tenant will pass to the incoming tenant, as they agree to accept the property as ‘seen’. The landlord will usually conduct a gas safety and electrical inspection checks on the day of the mutual exchange.
4. The landlord operates a two stage complaint procedure. It is noted that the landlord has since reviewed and amended its complaints policy, however the policy in force at the time did not include timescales for response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code advises that stage one complaints should be dealt with in 10 working days with stage two complaints in 20 working days.

 

5. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy confirms that the landlord will work in collaboration with the police and other agencies to address antisocial behaviour. Behaviours such as threats and those causing or intended to cause alarm or distress are generally considered criminal offences and are the responsibility of the police. Where antisocial behaviour is the result of criminal activity the policy states that the landlord would expect residents to report this to the police and would expect the police and other statutory agencies to take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so. Where appropriate the landlord may take tenancy enforcement action against a perpetrator as a result of evidence obtained by the police or upon conviction.

 

6. The landlord operates a decant policy which states that where a property is uninhabitable and/or unsafe, or it is not possible to undertake urgent repair works with the tenant in-situ, residents can be decanted to alternative accommodation. For short-term decants where repairs are unlikely to take in excess of four weeks, residents will usually be moved to a hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation. A permanent decant will normally be considered only where repairs are likely to take more than six months.

 

7. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that emergency repairs, that which would present an immediate danger to health, will be attended to within 24 hours. For all other repairs, an appointment will be offered within 28 days of the repair being reported. Major component replacement (kitchens, bathrooms) are not responsive repairs and are delivered through planned works.
8. The landlord operates a compensation policy. Awards of between £50 and £250 are paid in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. Awards of between £250 and £700 are paid in cases where it finds considerable failure but where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Awards of over £700 are made where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant.
9. The landlord’s management transfer policy confirms that the landlord relies on management transfers in circumstances where a resident is experiencing serious antisocial behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk or where a resident is experiencing domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk.
10. The landlord’s tenancy management policy in force at the time states that the responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests was shared between it, residents and the local authority. Residents were responsible for taking all reasonable action to prevent, reduce or destroy pests and infestations, including keeping their home clean and tidy and free from rubbish, and reporting any infestations promptly to the landlord so it could assess the cause and try to prevent access to properties and treat any problems in communal areas. The landlord would arrange for the eradication of pests in a residents home where the problem was clearly traced to an infestation in a communal area.

Summary of events

11. The resident applied to the landlord for a mutual exchange in October 2020.  A home inspection was completed by a Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) on 19 November 2020 which concluded that the property she was exchanging into was in a good condition and a surveyors inspection was not required. The resident’s application was approved on 10 December 2020 with a move-in date agreed for 1 February 2021.
12. On 23 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to request that urgent action be taken to resolve some of the problems in the property she had exchanged into. She listed that the following repairs were required:
    1. She said that the kitchen had not been fitted properly and she had seen mouse droppings throughout the flat and mice in the kitchen.
    2. She also reported a strong sewage smell to be coming from the basement but which was evident throughout the flat.
    3. One of the windows in the living room was in disrepair and it was letting in draughts.
    4. The resident also raised concerns about exposed wires, holes “throughout the property” and problems with the electrics.
    5.  She said that the landlord had not undertaken the appropriate checks before the mutual exchange was agreed and that due to the poor conditions in the property, she had to sleep in the living room with her daughter. The landlord responded that day to advise the resident that her correspondence had been logged as a complaint and would be investigated.
13. On 1 and 4 March 2021, the landlord attended and inspected the drain at the front of the property. It discovered that there was a damaged chamber where the inside wall had collapsed which it believed was allowing raw sewage fumes to enter the property. As the landlord initially considered that this would be the responsibility of the water company to repair, the water company was contacted, and arrangements were made for an inspection that week. The landlord made arrangements on 5 March 2021 to decant the resident and her daughter to a hotel until the collapsed drain was repaired. On the same day, it inspected the rest of the property and acknowledged that there was a mouse infestation and some other repairs that would need to be resolved including a window, ‘minor kitchen repairs’ and a further electrical inspection. It was recorded that “nothing in the property is standardised that we would expect as part of a mutual exchange situation”.
14. The resident was unhappy with the progress of the repairs and around this time she contacted the local authority’s Environmental Health Section who, in turn, contacted the landlord to request that it investigate the resident’s reports and respond with a report detailing proposed action.
15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 March 2021 requesting an update on her complaint. She said that she had not been told what action was being taken to address the concerns she had raised about the property. She also reported that since she had been living in the property there had been several incidents of significant antisocial behaviour around the property. She asked to be rehoused.
16. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 March 2021 to discuss the issues she had raised. Due to concerns about the resident’s mental well-being during the telephone conversation, a safeguarding concern was raised by the landlord. On the same day the landlord requested that the decant be extended. The water company had inspected the drain and concluded that its repair would fall within the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord arranged for contractors to inspect and make arrangements to undertake the works on the 12 March 2021 with the resident’s decant extended so that she could return to the property on 15 March 2021.
17. The resident wrote to the local authority Environmental Health Section on 9 March 2021 to report that works had yet to be carried out by the landlord.   The landlord was contacted by the Environmental Health Officer on 10 March 2021 requesting an update on the works and a copy of the property’s Gas Safety Certificate and its Electrical Installation condition report.
18. On 11 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord once again to complain that she had still not received an update and the repairs remained outstanding. She enclosed a letter from her GP detailing how her health had been impacted by her housing conditions.
19. On 14 March 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord to report that, while the repairs to the drain should have been completed on 12 March 2021, she had attended the flat that day and the strong sewage smell was still present in the property with mice droppings throughout the flat. The resident raised concerns that she would be allowed to return to the property without an inspection having taken place and she requested that a surveyor attend to inspect the property.
20. On 16 March 2021 there was a further inspection of the property and the landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed that the sewage smell was still present therefore there was a need for further investigation as to its cause. The inspection also recorded that the bathroom was non-standard and that the kitchen door had been removed. It advised that works to fill holes could cause problems with the kitchen which had been fitted by the previous resident. The report recommended that the property be voided and the resident rehoused pending completion of extensive works.
21. On 17 March 2021 the landlord’s internal correspondence records that consideration had been given to the resident’s request for a management move to a new property however it was decided that she did not meet the criteria. It also confirmed that a resident would not be permanently decanted in the circumstances and that, once the issue with the sewage smell was resolved, the resident could return to the property and any other repairs could be undertaken while she was in occupation. The decant would be extended to the 24 March 2021.
22. On 19 March 2021, the landlord undertook a further property inspection.   During the inspection, the landlord informed the resident that an electrical safety report had been undertaken before she moved into the property which has passed the electrics as being safe. Other items raised by the resident such as hairline cracks in walls and position of the electric socket in the kitchen were determined to be minor issues or within legal requirements. The landlord told the resident that the kitchen would be referred to its planned works section within the next few weeks for a decision as to whether the kitchen could be renewed. It was agreed that the landlord would follow up on the pest control and sewage fumes issues and also check whether there were any health and safety implications regarding the position of the gas meter in the property.
23. The local authority’s Environmental Health Officer inspected the property on 26 March 2021 and sent his report to the landlord on 29 March 2021. In addition to the matters already flagged such as the electrics, rodent infestation, the window and the sewage smell, the report identified that a window was required to the basement bedroom for ventilation and fire doors should be installed both in the kitchen and the entrance door to the flat. Further works to address potential hazards in the property were also identified including installing a hand rail leading to the first floor.
24. On 30 March 2021 the landlord responded to advise Environmental Health that pest control had completed an inspection and treatment that day and provided a copy of the report and recommendations. A copy of the property’s electrical installation certificate was also provided. The landlord also confirmed that the waste pipe had been repaired.
25. Pest control undertook follow up visits on 6 and 20 April 2021 to check bait stations and, as there was no further evidence of bait uptake, made recommendations for proofing works to be undertaken in the property to prevent mice from re-entering the property.
26. On 6 April 2021 the landlord sent a further email to Environmental Health advising that they did not consider that a window needed to be installed in the basement room as this room had never been intended to be used as a bedroom. The flat was advertised as a two bedroom flat, however, the previous resident had instead used the bedroom as a dining room and the basement room as a bedroom. The additional works, as requested by Environmental Health on 29 March 2021, were arranged for 16 April 2021.
27. On 14 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm which works had been completed to date and the dates when the remaining works were to be undertaken.
28. The landlord issued its stage one response on 28 July 2021:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint this was because they wanted to complete the majority of the works before concluding the matter.
    2. It was agreed that the kitchen would be renewed as part of the planned works programme during this financial year.
    3. The electrical inspection was completed in February 2021 which confirmed that the electrical installations in the property had passed the inspection. All remaining wires were disconnected and boxed in on 10 May 2021. The electrics points had been fitted in line with guidance and complied with regulations.
    4. Pest control had attended on three occasions to treat the property and proofing work had been completed on 16 April 2021 to prevent mice from entering the property.
    5. Works were undertaken to repair a waste pipe and brick wall inspection chamber to address the sewage smell and these works were completed on 29 April 2021. The resident was decanted to a hotel from 5 March to 24 March 2021 while the collapsed drain was repaired. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was unhappy that she had to return to the property when some of the repairs remained outstanding however it considered that it was reasonable for some of the repairs to be completed while she remained in occupation.
    6. The window would be repaired on 16 August 2021 as agreed with the resident.
    7. A repair order was raised regarding the wires in the basement room that were hanging down from the light fitting and this was completed on 8 May 2021.
    8. The cracks in the property’s walls were decorative and not submissive so no additional works were proposed to address this. The holes in the property had been filled and these works were completed on 7 May 2021.
    9. The resident had reported an incident of anti-social behaviour on 8 March 2021 with youths entering the communal areas in the flat. The landlord said that it was working with the police and the local authority to address the antisocial behaviour. It had not been made aware of any other incidents since March 2021, but the resident would be contacted by a Neighbourhood Response Officer so that this could be discussed further.
    10. The landlord had completed additional repairs that were not part of the complaint including replacing skirting boards, fitting a new back door and new toilet and removing and replacing electricity points where the resident had reported that she had experienced electric shocks.
    11. With regards to the mutual exchange the previous tenant had used the storage room in the basement as a bedroom. This room was not intended for this purpose. There was a separate room, used by the previous tenant as a dining room, that was intended for use as a bedroom. This should have been highlighted by the Officer who inspected the property who should, in turn, have raised a further inspection request with the Technical Services team. The landlord would not, therefore, be installing a window in the storeroom as there was no legal requirement for them to do so.
    12. With regards to the landlord allowing the mutual exchange to go ahead, the landlord said that the repair issues raised by the resident had not been picked up during the pre-exchange home inspection and only came to light when the property was empty. Regardless of this, a mutual exchange could not be refused on this basis.
    13. The landlord would not agree to a management transfer as the mutual exchange went ahead in line with legislation, the repairs have been completed and additional repairs have also been undertaken which were not part of the resident’s original complaint.
    14. In terms of lessons learned, the landlord was reviewing the processes for mutual exchanges to ensure that they pick up issues of this nature in the future.
    15. A service failure has been identified for which the landlord offered an apology and £250 in compensation which was broken down as £200 for failing to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact and £50 for delay in responding to the complaint.
29. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 August 2021.She was unhappy about the time it had taken to resolve the issues, some of which were still outstanding, and said that she felt that the compensation offered was inadequate. She disputed the landlord’s findings in relation to the basement room and queried why her electrical fuse box had not been replaced. She also said that there had been five incidents of anti-social behaviour since February 2021.
30. The resident followed this request up with the landlord on 31 August 2021 and it appears from the landlord’s records that the stage two request had not been logged at that time. On 20 September 2021 the resident chased this up again.
31. On 23 September 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two request and apologised for not responding in a timely manner as this had been recorded incorrectly on the landlord’s case management system because of an administrative error.
32. The landlord issued its stage two response on 13 October 2021 in which it:
    1. Reiterated that the basement room was never intended to be used as a bedroom. If the landlord had intended for it to be used as a bedroom the property would have been advertised as a three bed flat and as such the resident would not have been eligible for a mutual exchange as she would have been under-occupying. While the landlord’s staff may have referred to the storage room as a bedroom, this did not amount to confirmation that the room was a bedroom.
    2. The electrical inspection that took place on 17 February 2021 confirmed that the installation was in good condition and that the electrical fuse box would benefit from an upgrade in near future. The landlord concluded that the electrical fuse box did currently meet standards and therefore it did not require immediate upgrading.
    3. It had liaised with the police about various incidents of anti-social behaviour around the property however they have not been able to take further action due to a lack of evidence. The resident was encouraged to contact the police to report incidents. The landlord advised that antisocial behaviour was not one of the grounds on which a mutual exchange can be refused and that the resident should have asked questions of the previous tenant about antisocial behaviour in the area before agreeing to the exchange.
    4. The landlord considered the resident’s request for increased compensation. It accepted that pre-exchange inspection should have flagged up that the basement room was not intended for use as a bedroom, but concluded that the impact was minimal as the property remained a two bedroom even without the use of that room. A further £100 was awarded in recognition of the oversight.
    5. £150 was offered for the inconvenience of multiple repair appointments and a further £100 was awarded because incorrect information had been provided in relation to the mutual exchange. In total an award of £650 compensation was made which comprised of:

1. Delays to stage 1 complaint response – £50
2. Delays to stage 2 complaint response – £50
3. Pre-exchange inspection not recording that basement room was incorrectly being used as a bedroom – £100
4. Inconvenience of multiple repair appointments – £150
5. Failure to meet service standards for action and response £300

33. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2021 to reject the offer of compensation on the basis that she was dissatisfied with the complaint response. The resident then referred the matter to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

34. The resident has said that as a result of the condition of the property and the anti-social behaviour that she witnessed after she moved in, her health had deteriorated. Whilst this Service recognises the concerns that the resident has reported have caused distress to her, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the condition of the property and the deterioration of her health. This is, instead, a matter for the courts and if the resident wishes to pursue this matter she would be advised to seek specialist legal advice. 

(a)Mutual exchange

(i) The condition of the property

35. The resident said that the inspection undertaken by the landlord was inadequate and a closer inspection would have revealed repair issues. The resident believes the mutual exchange should have been rejected by the landlord because of the condition of the property.

36. The resident was informed by the landlord that she should satisfy herself as to the condition of the property before she agrees to the exchange. In a letter from the landlord dated October 2020 it advised the resident to undertake necessary inspections before she moved in, to ask questions of the outgoing tenant and to check all rooms. While it is correct that when a resident moves to a property via mutual exchange it is their responsibility to check that they are satisfied with a property’s condition, as COVID-19 restrictions were in place at that time, it is unclear how many opportunities the resident had to view the property prior to the exchange. The landlord’s procedures were amended during the pandemic to specify that the incoming tenant was no longer required to attend the property inspection. 

37. The landlord‘s mutual exchange procedure requires that an inspection of the property is undertaken before a mutual exchange can be approved. A Neighbourhood Response Officer can undertake inspections and a referral would only be made to a Technical Inspection Officer or Surveyor if structural changes had been made to the property.

38. The inspection report recorded that the home visit took place on 16 November 2020. It noted that it is a two bedroom property and that there had been no structural changes, tenant improvements or alterations. It reported that all rooms were in “good condition” at the date of the inspection. 

39. While it may not be possible for the landlord to complete a thorough inspection while the outgoing resident is still in occupation, some of the issues reported by the resident should have been evident on inspection such as alterations to the bathroom and kitchen and a missing kitchen door. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy provides that an exchange can be refused where there has been a breach of tenancy such as outstanding tenant repairs. An outgoing tenant can be given a deadline to complete the repairs with the exchange being refused if the tenant fails to comply. The kitchen, bathroom and kitchen door should therefore have been highlighted by the NRO during the inspection process and a referral made for a technical inspection to determine whether the mutual exchange should go ahead. Also, given the limited opportunities the resident had to view the property during the pandemic and as she may have had a lack of technical knowledge or experience in identifying defects and alterations, an accurate and carefully considered report could have assisted the resident in making an informed decision as to whether she still wished to proceed with the exchange. In not carrying out appropriate checks, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy.

40. Having reviewed the landlord’s repair records there is no record of sewage fumes, the pest infestation or issues with the window being raised with the landlord in the months preceding the resident’s occupation. These issues may not have been immediately apparent during an inspection if not disclosed by the outgoing tenant or they may have occurred after the home inspection, given that there was a lapse of approximately 10 weeks between the inspection and the date of the mutual exchange. Irrespective of this, there are limited grounds on which a landlord can refuse a mutual exchange and the landlord would not have been able to refuse the exchange in the circumstances. However, as noted above, a more rigorous inspection by a surveyor or technical officer may have identified other issues which may have informed the resident’s decision about the exchange.

(ii) Antisocial behaviour

41. The resident considered that she should have been informed about any antisocial behaviour before she moved in which would have enabled her to make an informed decision as to whether she wished to proceed with the exchange.

42. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the resident made enquiries of the landlord or former tenant regarding any previous antisocial behaviour complaints in relation to the property before she agreed to the mutual exchange. There is generally no obligation on a landlord to inform potential tenants of the prevalence of antisocial behaviour in a locality and neither can this be the basis for rejecting a mutual exchange. Under the mutual exchange policy the landlord will disclose information about antisocial behaviour relating to a property or neighbourhood to the other landlord as part of a reference for the incoming tenant, however this would be information shared only with the other landlord and this would not prevent a move from going ahead.

43. A landlord does, however, have an obligation when answering questions from potential tenants, including about antisocial behaviour, that the information provided is accurate and correct to its knowledge. In some circumstances where a landlord considers that an incoming tenant may be at risk from antisocial behaviour and criminal activity prevalent in the area, for example racial harassment, this information should be shared with the incoming tenant. From the information provided, these circumstances do not apply in relation to the anti-social behaviour reported by the resident.

(iii) Basement room

44. The resident complained that the basement room had been described as a bedroom prior to the exchange and that in accordance with the report from the Environmental Health Officer, a window should have been installed in the room. UK Building Regulations require that all bedrooms have windows both for ventilation and means of escape in the event of a fire. The evidence provided by the landlord confirms that the flat was advertised as a two-bed property and the property had two rooms with windows that were intended for use as bedrooms. The former tenant had used the storage room as a bedroom and one of the other designated bedrooms as a dining room, however the storage room was never intended for this use. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s position regarding this aspect of the complaint. While it would have been good practice for the resident to have been informed at the date of the home inspection that the basement room was not intended to be used as a bedroom, this has been recorded by the landlord as a learning outcome going forward. Therefore the Ombudsman finds no service failing in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

45. It is not disputed that the landlord inspected the property before the mutual exchange in accordance with its policy. The landlord conceded that alterations should have been recorded and a surveyor inspection booked which would have determined whether the exchange should have proceeded. In absence of the surveyors report, however, it is not possible for this Service to conclude that the landlord was obligated to refuse the mutual exchange.

46. The landlord acknowledged this oversight in its stage one complaint response in which it apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident and confirmed that lessons would be learned going forward with processes amended so that such issues would be picked up in the future. £100 in compensation was offered and it was agreed that the resident’s kitchen would be renewed with the resident’s toilet replaced and a fire door in the kitchen refitted. In the circumstances, the landlord had therefore offered reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfies this aspect of the complaint.

b. Repairs to the property

(i) Sewage fumes

47. There were delays in attending to these works and the resident was put to time and trouble in chasing this up and raising a complaint before an inspection was undertaken. There were further delays in the works being completed which, from the evidence, appears to be because the source of the problem was not apparent to the landlord on initial inspections and the landlord mistakenly believed that it was the water company that was responsible for undertaking the repairs.

48. The works were delayed beyond the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints procedure, however once the extent of the problem became apparent the landlord acted appropriately in decanting the resident and her daughter to a hotel without delay. Works were undertaken to repair the drain and the resident did return to the property on 24 March 2021. As the landlord had agreed to decant the resident pending resolution of the sewage issue, it was unreasonable for the landlord to end the decant accommodation before the works were completed which meant that the resident had been exposed to the sewage fumes for a further week before the waste pipe was repaired and a month before the works to the brick chamber were completed. The resident had raised concerns with the landlord about contact with contractors during the pandemic given her health condition which she advised put her in a vulnerable category. It is regrettable therefore that the landlord did not consider exercising its discretion to extend the decant accommodation pending completion of the majority of the works.    

(ii) Holes in the property

49. The holes in the walls and skirting in the property were reported to the landlord by the resident when she moved in and this was recorded in her complaint of 23 February 2021.This was a particular issue as mice were able to access the property through holes and gaps. It was reasonable for these repairs to be undertaken once the landlord was satisfied that the pest problem had been eradicated. Confirmation of this was provided by the pest control company on 6 April 2021.The works were then undertaken within a reasonable timescale.  

(iii) Windows

50. The broken window was reported by the resident on 8 February 2021. The landlord’s records show that the window had been inspected on six occasions since that date. As of 23 September 2021 while the window had been replaced on 16 August 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the sash window was slipping down and letting in rainwater. It is of concern to this Service that, taking into account the resident’s absence during July 2021, the resident was left without a functional window six months later. The property is a ground floor flat and the resident had already reported anti-social behaviour in the locality and expressed concerns that her home was being targeted. It would have been appropriate for this repair to be prioritised for these reasons and a delay of six months is therefore unreasonable and significantly outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy.

(v) Electrical repairs

51. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the electrics. The appropriate electrical checks were undertaken shortly after the mutual exchange. Confirmation was provided to the resident that the plug socket in the kitchen would not need to be moved or the fuse box replaced as they complied with legal requirements. The landlord took prompt action to refix the power points where the resident reported she had received electric shocks.

(vi) Renewal works in kitchen and bathroom.

52.The landlord confirmed that it had made arrangements to undertake additional repairs to the property that had not been raised by the resident, including replacing the toilet and renewing the kitchen. It was appropriate that the landlord took steps to arrange for these works to be undertaken given that it had acknowledged that alterations to the kitchen and bathroom should have been flagged during the pre-exchange inspection. As these were additional works and not repairs, they fell outside the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord replaced the toilet within a reasonable time and arrangements were put in place for the kitchen to be renewed as part of that year’s planned works programme.

(vii) A pest infestation.

53. The first record of the pest infestation being provided to this Service was as an initial complaint raised on 23 February 2021, although the resident states that this had been reported to the landlord shortly after she moved into the property on 1 February 2021. The property was first inspected by the landlord on 4 March 2021, and the pest infestation was raised by Environmental Health in correspondence with the landlord on 10 March 2021. The landlord exercised its discretion appropriately, and in accordance with its policy, to treat the infestation given that it had occurred through no fault of the resident. However, there was a significant delay in the landlord arranging for pest control to attend and the landlord’s action appears to have been prompted by the resident’s complaint. Once pest control was satisfied that the mice infestation had been eradicated, the landlord acted promptly in arranging for proofing works to be undertaken. Overall, however, the initial delay was unreasonable, with the result that the resident had to live in the property with a mice infestation for almost two months, which was unpleasant and distressing for both the resident and her daughter.

54.One final point relates to the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding works to the property. While it appears that the landlord was in regular discussion with its staff and operatives about the progress of works to the property, it is less clear that this information was passed to the resident. The evidence provided by both parties shows that the resident was put to time and trouble having to chase for updates. This was unsatisfactory, particularly as the landlord had recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities and a safeguarding concern had been raised due to concerns about her mental state. Regular and accurate updates would have offered a distressed and vulnerable resident reassurance that matters were in hand. 

55. The landlord completed the repairs and has offered an apology to the resident for service failures in relation to its handling of repairs to the property.  Compensation of £450 was offered to the resident for the inconvenience of multiple repairs and for failure to meet service standards for actions and response. The Ombudsman recognises that this must have been a very difficult experience for the resident, taking into account her vulnerabilities, having to live in the unpleasant property condition coupled with the upheaval of having to move in and out of temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman also recognises the impact this would have had on the resident. The landlord has not considered its communication with the resident in its complaint response. The delays to repairs coupled with the landlord’s failure to provide her with regular updates caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.  As a result, this service makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint and considers that additional compensation of £100 should be awarded to the resident.

c. The resident’s request to be moved to another property.

56. The landlord concluded that as the resident was not experiencing anti-social behaviour, harassment or domestic abuse that was putting her life at risk, she would therefore not meet the criteria for a management transfer. Decisions about management transfers are discretionary and in considering the resident’s eligibility, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord exercised its discretion appropriately and in accordance with its policy. The landlord also considered whether the resident should be permanently decanted but concluded that the works could be completed within a reasonable time and while the resident was in occupation, which was a decision it was entitled to reach in accordance with its decant policy. This Service therefore finds no service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.

 

d. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

57. The resident first reported incidents of antisocial behaviour in her contact with the landlord on 6 March 2021 regarding an incident in 6 February 2021. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it stated that issues raised were being addressed in conjunction with the police and local authority and that they were only aware of one report of anti-social behaviour being made by the resident. The resident responded that she had made five reports of anti-social behaviour and that she had also been in contact with the police. The landlord conceded in its stage two response that it was aware of further incidents of anti-social behaviour reported by the resident but to date no further action had been taken by the police.

58. The landlord’s failure to accurately record and respond appropriately to the resident’s initial reports of antisocial behaviour was unreasonable. Following the resident’s stage one complaint, a Neighbourhood Response Officer contacted the resident to discuss the antisocial behaviour incidents and a safeguarding concern was also raised in response to the impact that it had had on her. Advice was provided about ongoing reports. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s reports were investigated and that the landlord had intervened. The landlord has advised that no further incidents of antisocial behaviour have since been reported by the resident.

59. The landlord can only take action itself where the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour is either one of its residents, or a household member or visitor of one of its residents. In other cases, this is reported to the police and local authority who have additional enforcement powers against perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. Further, in some instances a landlord is limited as to the information it can share with other residents where data protection regulations apply. However, support and advice should be offered by the landlord in relation to antisocial behaviour and, while this was offered to the resident following her stage one complaint, it is not clear from the records provided to this Service that support was offered to her at the time she made her initial reports.

60. While service failure has been identified by this Service as the landlord had failed to initially take into account all the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour, following the resident’s complaint it investigated these reports further and appropriate action was taken. The Ombudsman considers that an amount of £100 should therefore be paid to the resident in recognition of the detriment she had experienced.

 

e. The landlord’s complaint handling.

61. The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its policy by treating the resident’s correspondence of 23 February 2021 as a complaint. The resident chased the complaint response on at least five occasions. The landlord issued its stage one response on 28 July 2021. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, which member landlords are required to comply with, provides that stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints procedure in place at this time did not include timescales for response, although since this Service’s Special Report in relation to the landlord dated October 2022, the landlord has amended its complaints policy which is now compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. 

62. It was appropriate that the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her, to ensure it understood the outcomes she was seeking, ahead of issuing both its stage one and stage two complaint letters. The landlord’s complaint response at both stages was thorough and it responded to the points raised by the resident at each stage, outlining its position with regards to the outcomes the resident was seeking.

63.While it is apparent that the landlord sought to reply to the resident’s stage one complaint only after arrangements had been made to undertake the majority of the repairs, and the landlord kept in contact with the resident throughout the complaint process, a delay of four months to respond at stage one represents a significant delay and is unreasonable. The landlord’s stage two response was also delayed due to an administrative error whereby the escalation request was not recorded correctly. 

64. The delays at each stage of the process prolonged the complaint unnecessarily, and would have added to the distress the resident was experiencing. A landlord should respond to complaints promptly, unless it has a good reason not to do so. In such instances, an extension to the deadline for response should be agreed in advance with the resident. Where repairs are to be undertaken, the landlord should outline in its complaint response the works that it proposes to undertake with an assurance to the resident that regular updates would be provided and the complaint kept under review pending the completion of works. It is not appropriate for a landlord to delay responding to a complaint pending the completion of repairs and this caused detriment to the resident. 

65. In its response, the landlord acknowledged delays and offered an apology. It also offered an amount of £100 in compensation for delays in complaint responses. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, this did not go far enough.  and, in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, a further amount of £100 has been awarded in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident by these service failures.

Determination (decision)

1. maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs and a pest infestation in the property.
2. no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. service failure by the landlord in respect of:

i. its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

ii. its complaints handling.

Reasons                                                                                                                                                           

68.  The landlord’s pre mutual exchange inspection did not record alterations that had been made to the property and items of disrepair were not flagged. The landlord acted promptly in arranging for the kitchen to be renewed and items in the bathroom to be replaced it also offered compensation which went some way towards putting things right for the resident. In respect of the other matters raised by the resident in relation to the mutual exchange, the landlord acted in accordance with legal requirements and its policy. 

69. While there were some initial delays in addressing repair and pest infestation issues raised by the resident, the landlord undertook works in the property to address these issues and provided confirmation that other items raised by the resident, such as the electrics, were installed in compliance with regulations.  However, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident in relation to the repairs which, coupled with delays to works, caused detriment to the resident, particularly given her vulnerabilities.  

70.  The landlord acted in accordance with its policy when refusing the resident’s request to be rehoused. Decisions to rehouse residents outside of the landlord’s allocations scheme are discretionary. In this instance the landlord considered the resident’s eligibility for a management transfer and permanent decant and exercised discretion appropriately. 

71. While the landlord had incorrectly recorded the resident’s initial complaints of anti-social behaviour, once this had been raised with the landlord, it acted appropriately in raising this with the police, contacting the resident to discuss her concerns and updating her as to the police response. The resident was also given advice and encouraged to report any further incidents. However, the initial delays caused distress to the resident particularly in view of her mental health needs for which additional compensation is warranted.

72. There were delays at both stage one and stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure which caused unnecessary distress to the resident. 

Orders

1. £100 for its service failures in addressing the resident’s complaint of antisocial behaviour.
2. £100 for its poor communication and delays in its handling of a pest infestation and repairs to the property.
3. £100 for its handling of the complaint.